Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)525
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal, granting relief under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961, in a sum of Rs. 40,50,000 for the asst. yr. 1988-89 to the assessee.2. The precise question involved is as to whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction to the extent of profits referred to in Sub-section (1B) of Section 80HHC of the IT Act, derived from export of goods--in this case, granite, for the asst. yr. 1988-89.3. The very same question has been considered by this Court in a decision reported in CIT v. Pooshya Exports (P) Ltd., and this Court held that the assessee is not entitled, to the benefits as claimed by it under Section 80HHC of the Act.4. The reasonings given in the abovesaid decision will squarely apply to the facts of the present case, which fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for either side.5. Following the abovesaid decision, we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed error in hold...
Tag this Judgment!R. Natesan Vs. City Union Bank Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ44
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Second petitioner in O.A. No. 400 of 2001 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai is the revision petitioner in both the Revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In C.R.P. No. 1786/2002, the petitioner challenges the conditional order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In C.R.P. No. 1787/2002, the same petitioner challenges the final order dated 26-6-2001 passed in O.A. No. 400/2001 in and by which the Debts Recovery Tribunal issued a recovery certificate in favour of the applicant Bank to realize the sum as claimed.2. Heard Mr. P.L. Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandramouli, learned senior counsel for first respondent-City Union Bank, the only contesting party in both these cases.3. The first respondent-City Union Bank filed a civil suit in C.S. No. 1994/1994 on the file of the Original Side of this Court against Messrs. Ferrodeal Private Limited and other defendants, including the petitioner he...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K. Malathi Vs. Dr. S. Rajasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad322; II(2003)DMC415; (2003)2MLJ33
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai dated 08.11.2002 made in I.A. No. 2388 of 2002 in O.P. No. 126 of 1999, dispensing with the presence of the respondent herein till the final disposal of O.P. No. 126 of 1999, the petitioner - wife has filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Heard, Mr. R. Sundarrajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Thanikachalam, learned counsel for the respondent.3. The grievance of the petitioner - wife is that the Family Court has passed an order immediately on receipt of the petition from her husband even without ordering notice. The husband had filed O.P. No. 126 of 1999, for divorce against the petitioner herein - wife on the ground of cruelty. It is stated that the husband examined himself as P.W.1 and while his cross examination was in progress, he filed a petition in I.A. No. 2388 of 2002, stating that he is going abroad, therefore his presence may be d...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S. Paranjothi Vs. Dr. D. Balasubramaniam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ455
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Petitioner herein challenges the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) whereby, the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the first respondent. In that application, the selection of the petitioner for the post of Specialist Grade-II Senior Scale Super Specialist in Neurology has been set aside.2. The Tribunal has taken a view that the petitioner did not have the necessary qualification for the said post in the sense, that he did not have the necessary number of years of experience predominantly for the reason, in the Government Hospital of Pondichery, where the petitioner was in service, the Department of Neurology was opened only in November, 1997 and the petitioner's experience in other capacities could not be taken into consideration for this post. Following facts will highlight the controversy:3. Petitioner passed his M.B.B.S. Degree somewhere in the year 1976 and the degree of M.D. in the year 1987. He passed...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Bafna, Proprietor, Mansi Mercantile Co. Vs. Inspector General o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad355
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner herein has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to refund the excess stamp duty collected at the rate of 26% from the petitioner for registration of document Nos. 535 to 539 of 1998 with interest at 18% per annum.2. With the consent of either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. S. Rama Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. V. Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.3. The petitioner purchased agricultural lands measuring 10 acres and 58 cents comprised in survey Nos.1638/1, 1642/3, 1642/1, 1642/4, 1642/2 and 1639/6 of Vilpatti Village in Kodaikanal Taluk. The sale deeds were presented for registration before the 3rd respondent on 16.3.98 and they were assigned pending numbers 23 to 27 of 1998 respectively. It is claimed that the documents were kept pen...
Tag this Judgment!Kodaikanal International School, Represented by Its Principal, Dr. Bru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ87
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6-2-2003 of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal in I.A. No. 31 of 2003 in O.S. No. 17 of 2003.2. Heard Mr. N.S. Sivam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent.3. Kodaikanal International School through its Principal is the petitioner in the above Revision. The case of the petitioner school is briefly stated hereunder: The respondent-student Nihal Ghosh studied in the petitioner school upto 8th Grade along with his elder brother. In 2001, his parents shifted Nihal Ghosh from Kodaikanal International school. In 2001, the parents of Nihal Ghosh requested Kodaikanal International School to re-admit their son Nihal Ghosh. By showing latitude, Nihal Ghosh was admitted in the petitioner school in July, 2001 in Grade 10 (Tenth Standard) signing Code of Conduct prescribed for the students. In Feb...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Ponnusamy Vs. Thoppalan @ Karuppa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad147; 2003(2)CTC516; (2003)2MLJ37
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue raised in both the Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Defendant in O.S. No. 516 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, aggrieved by the order dated 12-4-2002 passed in the suit, holding that the District Munsif's Court has jurisdiction to try the issue raised, has filed C.R.P. No. 797/2002 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The very same petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the same Court dated 26-8-2002 in I.A. No. 874/99 in O.S. No. 516/99, granting injunction and continuing the same without taking up the injunction application, has filed C.R.P. No. 1751/2002 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. According to the plaintiff/respondent herein, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 516 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Namakkal, against the defendant/petitioner herein for permanent injunction, restraining him (defendant/petition...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaraj and Co. and R. Govindarajan Vs. the Nedungadi Bank Ltd., Op ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC117; [2003]114CompCas491(Mad); (2003)2MLJ196
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The first and second defendants are the appellants herein.2. This appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore granting a decree in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:The first defendant is a partnership firm and the defendants 2 and 3 are the partners of the first defendant firm. On 5.7.1979 a crossed demand draft for a sum of Rs.65,063/- in favour of the first defendant firm was received by the plaintiff for clearance through Canara Bank, Headquarters Road Branch, Coimbatore. The Canara Bank received the payment and endorsed the same by affixing its rubber stamp. The first defendant has withdrawn the amount from Canara Bank. On 22.8.1979, the first defendant attempted to encash another Demand Draft, and it was found that the demand draft was a forged one and had been tampered with. Canara Bank Branch Manager of Head Quarters Road branch teleph...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Sheriff @ Saibullah Sheriff Vs. Magbul Sheriff,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad355; (2003)2MLJ63
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Babu Sheriff alias Saibullah Shefiff, the first defendant in the suit, having lost before both the Courts below, has filed this second appeal.2. The respondents 1 to 11/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction against the defendants.3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-(a) The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one Bahar Sheriff. Their grandfather Satthaar Sahib has got three sons--Bahar Sheriff, Hussain Sheriff and Kasim Sheriff. After the death of Satthaar Sahib, his sons divided the properties. Bahar Sheriff was allotted 39 cents in S. No. 139/9. The other sons were allotted 11 cents each in S. No. 139/8. (b) In the year 1929, Bahar Sheriff mortgaged the allotted properties, namely 39 cents in favour of one Saribabi Ammal. In the year 1940, out of 39 cents allotted to him, Bahar Sheriff sold 25 cents to one Satthaar Sheriff, the son of Kasim Sheriff (his brother) and retained the balance 14 cents for himself. Th...
Tag this Judgment!R. Natesan Vs. City Union Bank Ltd. and 7 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC133; 2003(2)CTC393
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. 1. Second petitioner in O.A.No. 400 of 2001 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai is the revision petitioner in both the Revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In C.R.P.No. 1786/2002, the petitioner challenges the conditional order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In C.R.P.No. 1787/2002, the same petitioner challenges the final order dated 26.6.2001 passed in O.A.No. 400/2001 in and by which the Debts Recovery Tribunal issued a recovery certificate in favour of the applicant Bank to realize the sum as claimed.2. Heard Mr. P.L. Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandramouli, learned senior counsel for first respondent-City Union Bank, the only contesting party in both these cases.3. The first respondent-City Union Bank filed a civil suit in C.S.No. 1994/1994 on the file of the Original Side of this Court against Messrs. Ferrodeal Private Limited and other defendants, including the petitioner here...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »